This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I should specify. They don't win "that" Super Bowl.
+1, Poll Fail.
The poll says "Which do YOU view as the worse infraction?"
Name one player whose career was prematurely ended by the Saints. Hell, I do you one better...name one player who even suffered a season-ending injury.
Danny Wuerffel
I really hope all you people saying the Saints playing tough is worse than the Patriots cheating are either Patriot fans or just too young to remember Spygate.It's either that or you're just not that bright... haha
Why did they do it then?
Agreed. When I first heard people like Adam Schefter talking about this leading to suspensions or even firing of Payton and Loomis, I thought everyone had lost their collective minds. But then I saw the alleged reports of Michael Ornstein's involvement -- http://deadspin.com/5890499/meet-the-convicted-felon-who-defrauded-the-nfl-made-reggie-bush-ineligible-and-funded-the-saints-bounty-program. If true, that's a game changer.
Payton may be a good coach, but I know a lot of the media guys down there and they all think he's a miserable puke. From what I've heard it doesn't totally surprise me that he's hanging around shady characters.
OK . . . I'll bite.What did the 2007 Spygate case have to do with the 2001 Patriots SB title?There were rumors of a tape of a Rams walkthrough prior to the SB, but no tape ever surfaced and nothing ever became of it. Seeing how the league did nothing at all to NE about anything in 2001, I don't see what that did to the Rams. And Warner is going to the HOF regardless . . .
I tend to agree but much like the arguments about Spygate, the question remains: If the Saints gained no competitive advantage from having a bounty system, even after being specifically warned by the league to stop, why did they keep doing it?In my opinion, the two situations are extemerly similar.Both Spygate and Bountygate involved grey areas that were part of the NFL in one form or another for a long time. Both the Patriots and the Saints were warned about their respective rule-breaking and continued to do it, most likely believing that the league would continue to turn a blind eye. Both teams could have modified their behavior to achieve the same end result without running afoul of the rules.
I couldn't answer that question, but taping other team's practices has the potential to give you inside information on what they are doing which could potentially translate to an advantage on the field. Placing bounties on opposing players does nothing of the sort. The guy going after him will either do his job or not. The playing field is still level.Again I'm not saying the Patriots necessarily did gain an advantage, just that their actions had the potential to. Personally I think both "scandals" are overblown products of sensationalistic media than anything else.
Unless I am misremembering (to use a Clemensism), the Pats got nabbed for taping a defensive coordinators signals in games. They were not punished for taping opposing team's practices, and as far as I know there was nothing the league was presented to support they taped practices.
Yeah, my memory was fuzzy. They were accused of taping the Rams' walkthrough prior to XXXVI but nothing ever came of it.
The Saints still had to play defense within the confines of the rules and with 6 refs on the field watching them. No Saint players have been fined or suspended for late hits or dirty play.
Not only that but the only published report about this was in the Boston Herald and they ended up printing a full retraction and apology. It's amazing how many people still think that the Pats taped the Rams practice based on that one completely false report.
It's debateable that this report was completely false. My recollection is that the Patriots were accused of this but never produced the tape. When pressed to produce it, they claimed it was destroyed. Cowherd actually talked about that a bit today on the Herd as there was similar comparison from callers alluding to Spygate vs. Bountygate. Just because no tape was ever produced for the league to review, doesn't mean the Patriots didn't do it. In fact Cowherd alluded to, and I agree with him, the notion that the Patriots might've actually gotten less punishment for producing the tapes (assuming they were as harmless as the Patriots argued). Since the NFL had nothing to go on, they had to assume the actual evidence was worse.I agree with the previosuly stated opinion that both of these stories are horribly overblown from a media standpoint.As for which offense is "worse" I think we'll see that the league will view the Saints actions as being far more damaging since it opens the league up to lawsuits. Whereas the average fan will view the Patriots actions worse as they were guilty of more "rulebreaking" and actions that are genuinely considered cheating. Nothing the Saints did can really be considered cheating. I think Williams will be suspended for the year and Payton and Loomis will eat huge fines. I don't think it's inconceivable to see the Saints surrender picks too. While all of this is being ridiculously overreported by the media, it is an interesting study regarding actions the league feels are most damaging ... putting them in harms way from a legal standpoint versus impacting the integrity of the game through perceived cheating.'Workhorse said:
I think most of the general public who watches the NFL would be "sickened" as you put it to know the kinds of things that go on during games. I'd give the commissioner's office a round of applause for their attempts to clean it up if I thought they were truly sincere vs. simply being worried about how it affects their bottom line.
Well I'm not naive. I know a lot of questionable things happen behind the scenes. It's just beyond my comprehension though that an entire defensive unit, not just a couple of guys, were OK with this. I'm ALL for big hits. A WR or RB has the ball you lay into them as best you can to try and get the ball out. I understand the drive to win and to want to win. I can understand hitting with the intention to get the ball out. I just don't get hitting with the intention of crippling people.
From what I remember, the Herald claimed TO HAVE a copy of the videotape and cast aspersions as to what was contained on it. When it came down to produce the tape, they could not do it. This all hinged on a guy who apparently had been hired or contracted to do video work for the Pats (who had been let go), and IIRC he on his own claimed to have been at the SB and whipped out his camera and filmed the session (on his own) . . . and then allegedly tried to sell it to the Patriots. Again, it's fuzzy, but years later he then some how got to the Herald and his story was he had a tape and sold it to the Pats. I thing things started with Spygate and that's when he went to the paper (angry at getting let go) and said he had things way worse.But as far as I can remember, no tape was ever produced from this guy or the newspaper. The Pats said they never saw a tape or ever had possession of one. The commish couldn't do anything because there was nothing to look at. The Herald got egg on their face and had to look stupid over this for years.Back at that time (5 years ago), I had a lot more Patriots related contacts than I do now (they have moved on to other things in other places), but from my poking around and research, no one I communicated with saw any evidence of there being a tape and the whole story ended up being a big fishing trip.
Not, it's really not debatable at all. There was no tape. There isn't a single person who even claims to have ever seen a tape of the Rams walkthrough. It was 100% made up by a Herald reporter based on erroneous rumor and innuendo and they published a front AND back page apology saying that "a tape of the walkthrough never existed." Period.http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/05/herald_apologiz.html
I'm not connecting the dots the same way you are. Wouldn't knocking the opposing QB out of a game (with a legal hit) be considered a "big play"? It would seem that until this story broke, defenses who legally knocked an opposing player out of the game were held in high regard (as were the players who were thought to be "physical". Getting paid a little extra because a guy got carted off does NOT mean the defender who hit him played dirty or broke the rules. It could mean that the defender (and his teammates) were very focused on playing physical, hitting hard, and finishing off their tackles. Maybe that motivation came from the coaching staff. But that in and of itself is not dirty, nor is it illegal. In fact, in today's NFL, it's encouraged. If you're a defensive coordinator and you feel you can get a better result from your players and influence them to play harder and more physical, but within the rules, by pushing certain buttons and motivating them in certain ways, I'm confident you'll end up doing it... and you'll likely be considered a very good coach. Despite what I'm saying above, I don't feel it's a good practice for a team or coach(es) to implement this "bounty system" that rewards a player when the opposition gets injured. Celebrating injury to that extent doesn't seem acceptable. Over the course of time the line will get blurry to players as to which hits should be avoided versus encouraged. And of course there's the legal ramifications for the team and league too.
For me it's all about INTENTION. I agree with everything you said and in my second post I tried to clarify what I was saying that I expect players to play fast and hard. It's the intention to hurt somebody so badly that they can't walk on their own that I think crosses that line. I have NO PROBLEM with a big play pool. Blocking punts, getting sacks etc. But telling players if you HURT someone you get a bonus is just ridiculous.
